- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Welcome to the New ForestNew Forest sportive riders slammed by motorists for not riding single file
A sportive event in the New Forest has come under fire, with motorists and farmers complaining that cyclists are inconsiderate when riding in the area.
The New Forest 100, which was held two weeks ago, was the latest cycle event to anger locals. Last year we reported how an increase in the number of cyclists there is posing a danger to pedestrians and livestock, according to the chairman of a body representing the rights of Commoners in the New Forest.
Frances Baye, a motorist, told the Salisbury Journal that she had been held up by the New Forest 100. She said: “I was trying to overtake the cyclists as I was approaching Burley and it was virtually impossible.
“A group of cyclists refused to get into single file and continued to overtake each other, despite knowing there was a queue of traffic behind them.
“I am not against these cyclists enjoying the fresh air and getting fit but think consideration has to be the priority.”
A resident, who asked not to be named, said: “Despite these types of events not being classed as a race, the competitors are consistently in a hurry to pass other competitors at speed and in large packs.
“They can cause anguish to Forest stock and other cyclists, including children, who are not involved in the race, as well as cars and other vehicles.
“Last weekend was really the last straw with a ridiculous numbers of competitors.
“There were as many as four cyclists abreast on each side of the road; they were nearly crashing into each other at speed, going downhill, never mind the traffic trying to go up and down the road.
On the cycling section of its website, the New Forest National Park Authority says “You are welcome to cycle on public roads, byways open to all traffic, public bridleways, restricted bridleways, and dedicated cycle routes. You are not permitted to ride over the Open Forest, or on Forestry Commission tracks which are not dedicated cycle routes. Cycling on public footpaths is also not permitted.”
The National Park’s boundaries roughly correspond to the area of heathland and woodland within which some 500 commoners are entitled to graze livestock including cattle, donkeys, pigs, sheep and, most famously, ponies.
Last year, Dr Graham Ferris, Dr Graham Ferris, chairman of the New Forest Commoners’ Defence Association (NFCDA), established in 1909 “in response to the increasing conflict between the spreading urban populations around the New Forest’s fringes and the commoners’ animals,” said that the number of cyclists riding in the New Forest nowadays meant that “The roads are effectively obstructed and confrontations leading to a breach of the peace are likely.”
Concern for livestock was cited then and now as reasons to keep cyclists in line during mass events.
But data compiled by the New Forest National Park Authority clearly demonstrate that it is motorists, not cyclists, who pose by far the the greater risk to livestock in the Forest.
During 2009, 24 foals and 41 mares were either killed outright or had to be put down following collisions with motor vehicles in the New Forest. There were no reported occurrences of animals being killed in incidents involving cyclists.
Director of UK Cycling Events, organisers of the New Forest 100, Martin Barden said: “Some 1,300 people took part in the New Forest 100, many of whom travelled from all over the country to take part, to experience the beautiful national park and assist the local economy in these difficult times.
“There are one or two people who live in the New Forest who believe they own the New Forest roads.
“The roads are public highways and cyclists have every right to cycle along them and get fit and enjoy the New Forest.
“The event on Sunday was a non-competitive event, with riders’ start times spread out from 7.30am to 10.15am.
“As per our terms and conditions, anyone who is deemed to be racing would be disqualified.
“We ask cyclists to ride considerately and in single file where possible, although riders are legally allowed to ride two abreast.”
As well as the New Forest 100, UK Cycling Events runs the Wiggle New Forest Spring Sunday Sportive, and it is also home to the New Forest Rattler and a recent ride out with the Garmin pro team.
Latest Comments
- perce 3 hours 2 min ago
Oh god is he still here? Still not found a publisher for his stories?
- chrisonabike 4 hours 34 min ago
You've been quoted in the article as being concerned "about the safety of cyclist and vehicles”....
- S.E. 9 hours 16 min ago
My guess is that they sell mainly on the German market - feel free to correct me. That might explain why they are not "pushing" their products,...
- ktache 9 hours 41 min ago
Now Emily Chappell really liked the Lezyne , I have the HV version, good, but I find the handle uncomfortable in use. I've often wondered about the...
- biking59boomer 8 hours 48 min ago
What about this one!? Taken in Cardiff Civic Centre 1939
- Muddy Ford 9 hours 51 min ago
Charlie Alliston got 18mths and is the reference case (because there are so few cases) for all campaigns by anti-cyclists that 'cyclists are not...
- belugabob 10 hours 53 min ago
My local football practice pitches (all weather, in a fenced off area, are regularly the scene of inconsiderate parking, with vehicles blocking the...
- Spangly Shiny 11 hours 18 min ago
Assos ASOS anyone?
- chrisonabike 11 hours 31 min ago
Replace them all with Bromptons and they'd take up zero space within days or even hours, as they are all relocated elsewhere. To eBay or possibly...
- Andrewbanshee 12 hours 2 min ago
Where I live we are experiencing a lot of housing development on small and large plots of land. These developers don't seem to have problems...
Add new comment
156 comments
What's the cement lorry got to do with anything? To answer your question though, presuming the cement lorry is overtaking them according to the Highway Code, two abreast is safer as the lorry will overtake them in half the distance. If you're asking about a scenario where the lorry is driving dangerously and is willing to overtake without giving them the appropriate amount of room then I doubt it makes much difference if they're two abreast or not as the driver is judging the overtaking lane based on the room they are willing to give, so for it to be safer in single file you'd have to assume that the driver would give more space to a single rider.
What do you mean by a whole peloton? Club runs and organised cyclists very rarely cycle more than two abreast so do you mean say 10 cyclists two abreast or in single file? In that case it would definitely be safer riding two abreast, how long will the lorry be on the other side of the road when trying to overtake 10 cyclists in a long line? Probably about double the time if they were two abreast. Plus being two abreast usually forces drivers to overtake in a safe manner.
This is all very clearly explained in my blog which I referred you to above.
I don't think it's safe to ride up to a cement lorry at traffic lights on the left even though it's legal but if a cyclist chooses to do so it's only their safety they put at risk in reality. When drivers choose to overtake too close, it's the cyclist's life they're playing with.
My assertion that it's better to overtake when two abreast is based on following the Highway Code, if drivers choose to ignore this then they are choosing to put their impatience over the safety of the cyclists. If they follow the Highway Code, which they expect cyclists to do, they will be on the other side of the road regardless of whether try are two abreast or not.
It's not that it's difficult to single out, it is just that cyclists do not like to encourage drivers to overtake them without leaving enough space, is following the Highway Code that difficult?
I wasn't on the ride personally but have ridden in the New Forest while on another Audax and found the roads to be quieter than average. If the cyclists on the ride felt that the roads where busy, then they should have and probably would have singled out but I don't think that any traffic approaching a group of cyclists makes the road busy.
In most of cases riding two abreast is just a stupid and selfish thing to do and the Highway Code has nothing to do with it.
Most of people DON'T do it for "safety" but for social reasons and because the law say THEY CAN.
The problem is that a busy/narrow road isn't a place for a chit-chat while holding a line of traffic and antagonising car drivers.
Deflate your egos, stop quoting the regulations like a bunch of council jobsworths and start applying some common sense.
Just because you're formally "right" doesn't mean you should be doing it.
P.S. ...speaking as a cyclist.
I think most people agree that cycling two abreast on busy and narrow roads isn't the correct thing to do and I guess the government agrees which is why the Highway Code states you should single out and that's what most considerate cyclists do.
On the average road though, it's absolutely fine to do, it's not just that we have the right to do it, that it's more social or we have big egos but also because it's safer on two fronts, the car is forced to take the proper path round the group and only takes half the time to complete the manoeuvre. These reasons have been cited quite a few times here and elsewhere on the net.
If you disagree and prefer to cycle in single file, that's your choice but I wouldn't call choosing to cycle two abreast stupid an selfish on the majority of roads, this is speaking as a driver and a cyclist.
So a slow moving object out in the middle of a road is not a hazard?
Maybe pedestrians should walk on the road, two abreast (where there are no pavements), and force drivers to overtake them on the opposite lane?
Pedestrians are advised to walk against the traffic and keep in to the side.
Relative to a car, the speed of a bicycle isn't much different to that of a pedestrian. Both are slow, and both are a significant hazard when positioned two abreast on the road.
No one said cyclists should be in the middle of the road but yes, cyclists will get in the way of cars from time to time, it's inevitable. Calling them a "hazard" though is something I disagree with but I guess that's your opinion, you seem convinced that slow moving cyclists are a hazard, even so much to say that you think it should be made a law that cyclists should single out when there is a car behind.
One of the reasons you have given for this is due to cars going round blind bends and hitting cyclists if they're riding two abreast, this seems a very unlikely scenario, it would mean that the car would have to be driving round the blind bend fast enough to catch cyclists up that they didn't see before the bend, the average club run pace on the flat is 20mph, so the driver would have to be driving very fast into and round the corner for this to happen, if this was the case, surely the driver would work out that he's going too fast for the corner and have slowed down?
Another reason you give is that cars approaching cyclists on normal (non busy) roads when riding two abreast would have to slow down considerably, most of the normal roads we cycle along are 30mph limits, there are some national speed limit roads although they're usually narrow and therefore we'd be singled out anyway. If we're going 20+ and the car is going less than 30, the difference isn't actually that much, certainly a lot less that the gap between cyclists and pedestrians (who normally travel 3-4mph) so I don't think that comparison works.
Pedestrians are not normal road users and therefore have different rules to that of cars and cyclists which is why they're advised to walk on the wrong side of the road if there is no pavement (unless there is a blind corner). I think that pedestrian road use is self explanatory so I'm not sure why you're equating them to cyclists.
Cyclists are advised to be on the correct side of the road and allowed to cycle two abreast if the conditions are normal, but if you do think they are hazards, it's a good thing that the driving test now includes a hazard perception test, you'd hope that drivers can work out what hazards are and take appropriate actions, either slow down and wait or overtake if there's nothing coming the other side.
It seems that drivers think they have an obligation to overtake cyclists but this is simply not true, we all have a right to be on the road, no one has more than the other. You don't hear cyclists complain because cars cause them to have to slow down, wait, and overtake when safe when there is a traffic jam. Just as cyclists will get in drivers' way, cars will get in cyclists' way.
@PhilRuss
1. Parked cars are a hazard when they take up one half of the road ... and you don't expect to see parked cars out on the open road and if you do they are usually well in to the side and have broken down. The rescue service would put out a hazard warning sign to highlight their presence while stopping to assist.
2. A car turning left is moving out of the way.
3. Any slow moving vehicle (truck, bus, another car) is still way faster than a cyclist and much easier to see.
4. Walkers might not be traffic but they do illustrate the point and would represent a similar hazard as cyclists and are just as difficult to spot.
5. Oliver Hardy and Fatty Arbuckle could always ride a Tandem...
@Sim1515
Yes we all have a right to be on the road, please continue to use the roads, but do so without holding up other road users just so you can have a chit-chat with your mate.
When was rule 66 of the highway code written? Were the roads as busy back then as they are now? What might be regarded as 'normal' now may well have been seen as a 'extremely busy' back then...
It's just strange that my statement is out of the Highway Code and one is just your opinion but yes, I firmly believe that cyclists should assist cars in letting them overtake safely, and that is why on normal roads we ride two abreast.
But that is because, just like you seem to be, they are ignorant of the rules of how to overtake cyclists safely or do not understand what the rule means they should do.
You can quote rules as much as you like, but none of your arguments stack up IMHO.
So you know cars should overtake on the other side of the road according to the rules yet you keep mentioning straddling the white line, if the overtake, they should give as much space as they would a car and as the picture they provide on the Highway Code website shows this means only the left hand wheels are touching the middle line. Do you agree with this?
If you do, cycling two abreast if the car is following the rules above would make no difference to the car, the car would not have to take a wider arc as there would still be enough space. Do you agree with this?
If you do, you can work out that they would have to spend around half the time on the other side of the road, do you agree with this?
If the answer is no to any of the statements above, I think our interpretations of the Highway Code differ and we probably won't agree. I hope by breaking it down I'm making myself clearer as maybe it's my explanation which is at fault.
I love how the CSS or whatever it is on threads screws up after about 100 posts.
People like Nic obviously carry axes in their glove box, no point winding him up, he'll either do something he'll regret.
Or he'll just keep trolling.
While we're on the subject of trolling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZUPCB9533Y
I think you could call that disorganized chaos. Cyclists create organized chaos ... they choose to ride in groups.
minimum risk of injury to cyclists is no cyclists at all
don't ever forget that when you're talking about tightening the laws restricting cyclists
really? i always thought busy meant, well. busy.
Overtaking is one part of the problem ... any slow moving (relative to other traffic) object out in the middle of a lane is a hazard, regardless of whether it is legal to be there. Besides, if you are in town/city you won't find buses/cars overtaking you on the other side of the road ... there usually isn't room.
Simon, sorry I missed your blog link. I've popped across to have a quick read, and to your credit you do advocate common sense on when to single out in order to let cars pass.
I think your assertion on it being quicker to overtake two abreast cyclists is flawed as although the distance to move past two abreast cyclists whilst overtaking is shorter, any vehicle attempting such a manoeuvre would be on the wrong side of the highway for a longer duration as they have farther to move out and further to move back in again once they are past the cyclists. Another factor is that you will already have slowed right down waiting for a safe opportunity to overtake on the opposite lane, as your view ahead will be partially blocked.
Yes, the Highway code may well advise that the correct procedure is to overtake on the opposite lane, but with single file cyclists you could safely overtake by simply straddling the centre line (depending on your speed), making overtaking far quicker and with less exposure to being caught out by oncoming traffic. This would only be possible if the cyclists are willing to keep to the inside while you pass. Is this really so difficult to do? Once traffic has passed, then feel free to continue two abreast again.
On a final note, relating to the main subject of this thread ... I would seem the New Forest can be classed as a 'busy' road at the weekends, hence according to the Highway code rule 66, cyclists should be riding single file.
[[[[[[[[ Oh no they ain't. A pair of cyclists side-by-side are no more of a hazard than a parked car, or a car turning left, or a slower vehicle you wish to overtake, or a truck, a bus, or anything else getting up your nose because it's not going fast enough for you. And let's not equate walkers with cyclists. Walkers are not traffic----cyclists ARE. And if two riders are as hard to overtake as a car, they must be Oliver Hardy and Fatty Arbuckle.
P.R.
I'm interested in your use of the word hazard, do you mean that a car is likely to hit two cyclists riding two abreast as they are a hazard? If so, is is because they cannot see the two cyclists or something else?
If you mean by hazard, they are a nuisance, they are unlikely to hit but may get annoyed when they're stuck behind, maybe they should develop some patience and perspective and realise that there are other road users than themselves.
There are plenty of bigger vehicles which I've overtaken whilst on my bike, milk floats, tractors, horses, cars with horse boxes, all of these go slower than cyclists, take up more room (apart from horses), would you not class these as more hazardous?
I love repeating myself, it's not just to have a "chit-chat", it's also to actively encourage cars to pass safely and for them to pass more quickly, I don't think I can put it any more simply.
Your view of 'assisting' cars to pass seems rather at odds with how car drivers view this.
You know that statement is false as you have already pointed out the rules several times and I can recite them by heart.
They are not so much my arguments as the rules. I'm not trying to say I think cars should give us the same space, it's a rule. I'm not saying I think the should be on the other side of the road, there's a picture showing it. I'm not trying to debate how cars should overtake, I'm telling you how the Highway Code says thy should.
I love cycling, so I don't ever want to be needlessly restricted. I do see both sides of the argument and only pack cyclists and two abreast cyclists infuriate me ... because they are a hazard.
So you think that because drivers "make mistakes" and can hit cyclists in the middle of the lane because they're going slower, cyclists rights should be restricted to cater for it? I've also seen drivers pull out from side roads when cyclists are clearly on the road, should we also make all cyclists stop for cars pulling out of side roads?
Also, the Direct Gov website has advice for cyclists in regard of their position, it recommends "for a cyclist to ride well clear of the kerb - 1 metre away or in the centre of the left lane" so even when riding in single file you would regard their advice as "hazardous". It seems you know better than they do when it comes to safety but until they change the rules, I'll follow theirs.
Yes.
If you want to encourage cars to pass, then please don't get in their way.
It isn't safer forcing cars to overtake two abreast cyclists ... on the contrary it is much more dangerous for reasons already mentioned. And they aren't giving you any more space as the cyclist on the inside (nearest the middle of the road) will be just as close to the overtaking vehicle as a single cyclist would be when being overtaken by a vehicle straddling the centreline ... or closer if they are following the highway code ... making it more dangerous ... for both parties.
Agreed
If drivers cannot see two cyclists riding two abreast, I would think they need their eyes tested and probably wouldn't meet the "Standards of Vision for Driving", ie that you should be able to read a car number plate from 20 metres away. If you can do that, you should be able to spot 2 (or more) cyclists riding two abreast on the road.
Pages